On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:27:54PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> From: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
>
> We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
> available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
> the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
> accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
> stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d40fd1
> ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
> there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
> struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
> capability. Update the prototype for enable to accept a const pointer.
>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thie...@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> [ Rebased to for-next/core converting more users ]
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 3 ++-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h | 4 +++-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 7 ++++---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 14 ++++++--------
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 3 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 3 ++-
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index ac67cfc2585a..cefbd685292c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> u16 capability;
> int def_scope; /* default scope */
> bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope);
> - int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on all active CPUs */
> + /* Called on all active CPUs for all "available" capabilities */
Nit: Odd spacing? Also, "available" doesn't really make sense for errata
workarounds.
Maybe applicable would be a better word?
> + int (*enable)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps);
Alternatively, if the comment is liable to be ambiguous, maybe it would
be better to delete it. The explicit argument type already makes this
more self-documenting than previously.
I don't feel that strongly either way though; probably not worth a
respin unless you have other things to change.
Also please note that I didn't test the original patch here (in case
I didn't point that out already...)
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
